How does a rider prove He didn't know ?

Related:
Create New Tag

4/17/2018 11:17 AM

So how does a guy prove He didn't knowingly ingest some illegal / banned substance ?

Lie detector test , affidavit etc ?

|

4/17/2018 11:18 AM

They hire Robert Kardashian

|

#1
KX125

4/17/2018 11:23 AM

HenryA wrote:

They hire Robert Kardashian

Hiring a dead attorney probably isn't going to get you very far.

|

4/17/2018 11:26 AM

Ignorance of the rules isnt an excuse. Its his responsibility to check.

|

4/17/2018 11:26 AM

HenryA wrote:

They hire Robert Kardashian

GuyB wrote:

Hiring a dead attorney probably isn't going to get you very far.

Well, get Johnnie Cochran instead.

|

4/17/2018 11:55 AM

HenryA wrote:

They hire Robert Kardashian

GuyB wrote:

Hiring a dead attorney probably isn't going to get you very far.

thatswhathappens wrote:

Well, get Johnnie Cochran instead.

Or Clarence Darrow.

|

4/17/2018 11:55 AM

In the UFC, which uses USADA for drug testing, there have been cases where the athlete had their supplements tested and if they find that a supplement believed to be legal contains the substance in question, then that is taken into consideration. Jon Jones claimed that one of his failed drug tests was due to cheap, off brand boner pills (which they tested, and they found them to contain the banned substance). He wasn't let off completely though, as they deemed that though he didn't mean to take the banned substance (thus his sentence was reduced), he was careless.

|

Current rides: 2016 KTM 250SXF, 2017 KTM 350SXF

4/17/2018 11:55 AM
Edited Date/Time: 4/17/2018 11:56 AM

On Wadas site there are many places it says that athletes should check on everything they take and if there is an unknown or not sure simply dont use it.

Its not that hard for an athlete to take a supplement to a local lab and have them test it also for all found compounds.
The labs will also tell you the amounts of all found compounds.

Or you can have them test for certain compound.

Regular gym people test their own stuff all the time for bunk gear or low or underdosed gear. A world class athlete should know all this, because meatheads at a local gym aren't supposed to be smarter............

|

4/17/2018 11:59 AM

MPJC wrote:

In the UFC, which uses USADA for drug testing, there have been cases where the athlete had their supplements tested and if they find that a supplement believed to be legal contains the substance in question, then that is taken into consideration. Jon Jones claimed that one of his failed drug tests was due to cheap, off brand boner pills (which they tested, and they found them to contain the banned substance). He wasn't let off completely though, as they deemed that though he didn't mean to take the banned substance (thus his sentence was reduced), he was careless.

That only works if they can buy the same exact unadultered product at a similar store with the SAME LOT NUMBER

For Example, some guy guy popped for this, and Guess What?????????

Photo

|

4/17/2018 11:59 AM

|

4/17/2018 12:02 PM

MPJC wrote:

In the UFC, which uses USADA for drug testing, there have been cases where the athlete had their supplements tested and if they find that a supplement believed to be legal contains the substance in question, then that is taken into consideration. Jon Jones claimed that one of his failed drug tests was due to cheap, off brand boner pills (which they tested, and they found them to contain the banned substance). He wasn't let off completely though, as they deemed that though he didn't mean to take the banned substance (thus his sentence was reduced), he was careless.

Jon Jones' problem is that he was crushing up the "boner pills" and snorting them off girls' asses

|

4/17/2018 12:03 PM

kb228 wrote:

Ignorance of the rules isnt an excuse. Its his responsibility to check.

So you are sure it is Broc that screwed up, and not the provider of the nutrition?

For sure there could be an ingredient that was not suppose to be in there. Either not being on the declaration or label, or by mistake in the factory producing it.

There are scenarios where he actually have checked it and it SHOULD not contain anything but it did anyway.

|

4/17/2018 12:07 PM
Edited Date/Time: 4/17/2018 12:08 PM

There is no such thing as "didn't know". Every rider signs a anti-doping document before the season and the information is out there.

There are three scenarios:
1. Very lazy/stupid rider that didn't check if it is ok to take a certain substance (the info is available, especially if you have a professional trainer).
2. A rider that tried to cheat
3. A rider took something that was very low quality and had something in it that is not on the labels etc.

|

4/17/2018 12:09 PM

Doesn’t matter. He took it.

WADA doesn’t care.

They didn’t care when it was Stew they won’t care when it’s Tickle.

|

4/17/2018 12:14 PM

HenryA wrote:

They hire Robert Kardashian

GuyB wrote:

Hiring a dead attorney probably isn't going to get you very far.

thatswhathappens wrote:

Well, get Johnnie Cochran instead.

Photo

|

"A link is only as long as your longest strong chain"

4/17/2018 12:16 PM

Motofinne wrote:

There is no such thing as "didn't know". Every rider signs a anti-doping document before the season and the information is out there.

There are three scenarios:
1. Very lazy/stupid rider that didn't check if it is ok to take a certain substance (the info is available, especially if you have a professional trainer).
2. A rider that tried to cheat
3. A rider took something that was very low quality and had something in it that is not on the labels etc.

There are more scenarios. Miss-labled OEM stuff, misses in factory (contamination or pure mistakes during production).

|

4/17/2018 12:20 PM

Motofinne wrote:

There is no such thing as "didn't know". Every rider signs a anti-doping document before the season and the information is out there.

There are three scenarios:
1. Very lazy/stupid rider that didn't check if it is ok to take a certain substance (the info is available, especially if you have a professional trainer).
2. A rider that tried to cheat
3. A rider took something that was very low quality and had something in it that is not on the labels etc.

aees wrote:

There are more scenarios. Miss-labled OEM stuff, misses in factory (contamination or pure mistakes during production).

Does NOT matter.

Hes a world class athlete. Regular Meathead bros get their products tested on the regular at a lab.

They know EXACTLY what they have and they arent even being tested or in a tested sport!

|

4/17/2018 12:21 PM

peelout wrote:

Jon Jones' problem is that he was crushing up the "boner pills" and snorting them off girls' asses

That doesn't sound like a problem to me?

|

4/17/2018 12:24 PM

Where does leaded fuel for a 2 stroke come into play?

|

4/17/2018 12:24 PM

HenryA wrote:

They hire Robert Kardashian

GuyB wrote:

Hiring a dead attorney probably isn't going to get you very far.

thatswhathappens wrote:

Well, get Johnnie Cochran instead.

He‘s dead too. I think we‘re down to Barry Sheck.

|

4/17/2018 12:24 PM

Motofinne wrote:

There is no such thing as "didn't know". Every rider signs a anti-doping document before the season and the information is out there.

There are three scenarios:
1. Very lazy/stupid rider that didn't check if it is ok to take a certain substance (the info is available, especially if you have a professional trainer).
2. A rider that tried to cheat
3. A rider took something that was very low quality and had something in it that is not on the labels etc.

aees wrote:

There are more scenarios. Miss-labled OEM stuff, misses in factory (contamination or pure mistakes during production).

Asimo wrote:

Does NOT matter.

Hes a world class athlete. Regular Meathead bros get their products tested on the regular at a lab.

They know EXACTLY what they have and they arent even being tested or in a tested sport!

No-one test every delivery they get (every month, week, day, for everything they buy).
At max, they test the brand and the specific product once, thats it.

|

4/17/2018 12:24 PM

With all the possibilities of accidental ingestion, what do you all believe the percentage
of people that did it intentionally will say it "happened by accident"?
Question 2:
Percentage of riders that tested positive that intentionally took the regulated substances?
My guess is the answer is close to 100% for both questions.

|

www.alljackedupinc.com home of the Switch Hauler, the only modular hauling system www.sprocketstuff.com home of the Counter Sprocket Tool

4/17/2018 12:26 PM

MPJC wrote:

In the UFC, which uses USADA for drug testing, there have been cases where the athlete had their supplements tested and if they find that a supplement believed to be legal contains the substance in question, then that is taken into consideration. Jon Jones claimed that one of his failed drug tests was due to cheap, off brand boner pills (which they tested, and they found them to contain the banned substance). He wasn't let off completely though, as they deemed that though he didn't mean to take the banned substance (thus his sentence was reduced), he was careless.

Asimo wrote:

That only works if they can buy the same exact unadultered product at a similar store with the SAME LOT NUMBER

For Example, some guy guy popped for this, and Guess What?????????

Photo

Some camps are meticulous about keeping samples of all supplements taken. I may be mistaken but I think it was Yoel Romero who submitted such samples and was exonerated. I’m not claiming expertise, just repeating what I’ve heard (mostly from listening to Joe Rogan’s podcast).

|

Current rides: 2016 KTM 250SXF, 2017 KTM 350SXF

4/17/2018 12:34 PM

If your mummsy finds a sticky sock in the morning how are you going to prove you didn't masturbate?

Lie detector test , affidavit etc ?

It is what it is.

|

4/17/2018 12:34 PM

Credible evidence consistent with the factors specified in the Code. Credibility is always in the eyes of the fact finder; go read the Code for the points of proof. Although the new Code implemented the 4 year ban, it also creates more flexibility to assess a reduced penalty relative to fault for some classes of substances.

I do think the "I didn't know this had that" or even "It's not listed in there" works if you concede that you took the product in question to enhance performance. I believe that was the Antony West case, but its been a few years since I've read that decision.

|

Twitter: @ftemoto
Instagram: @mstusiak

4/17/2018 12:38 PM

Asimo wrote:

That only works if they can buy the same exact unadultered product at a similar store with the SAME LOT NUMBER

For Example, some guy guy popped for this, and Guess What?????????

Photo

UFC fighter Yoel Romero was able to have his suspension reduced because of tainted supplements, according to Joe Rogan it can happen allot easier than people realize.

|

4/17/2018 12:40 PM

kb228 wrote:

Ignorance of the rules isnt an excuse. Its his responsibility to check.

aees wrote:

So you are sure it is Broc that screwed up, and not the provider of the nutrition?

For sure there could be an ingredient that was not suppose to be in there. Either not being on the declaration or label, or by mistake in the factory producing it.

There are scenarios where he actually have checked it and it SHOULD not contain anything but it did anyway.

Yeah i see what youre saying but “i didnt know” isnt going to hold up anywhere.
What broc has to do is test every single sup he has and find the mis labeled one. Then he can say this is what i took, this ingredient wasnt on the label. In that case he can at least say he checked it, and at the time he knew it was a legal sup.

|

4/17/2018 12:50 PM

FreshTopEnd wrote:

Credible evidence consistent with the factors specified in the Code. Credibility is always in the eyes of the fact finder; go read the Code for the points of proof. Although the new Code implemented the 4 year ban, it also creates more flexibility to assess a reduced penalty relative to fault for some classes of substances.

I do think the "I didn't know this had that" or even "It's not listed in there" works if you concede that you took the product in question to enhance performance. I believe that was the Antony West case, but its been a few years since I've read that decision.

In fact, it looks like the Antony West case concerned the same basic substance. Although the penalty regime is different now (more flexible on some and harsher on intentional cheaters), this decision pretty much is a road map, and a better one than Stew's case (where there was a therapeutic use issue).

http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/3029.pdf

|

Twitter: @ftemoto
Instagram: @mstusiak

4/17/2018 1:10 PM

500guy wrote:

So how does a guy prove He didn't knowingly ingest some illegal / banned substance ?

Lie detector test , affidavit etc ?

Swear on the Bible at the masonic temple. I kid I kid.

|

4/17/2018 1:53 PM

500guy wrote:

So how does a guy prove He didn't knowingly ingest some illegal / banned substance ?

Lie detector test , affidavit etc ?

Produce the wrapper of what he ate.....simple really!

|